Greens at it again: Recounts filed in Nevada and New Mexico

I agree with you about the exit polls. They could never be accurate in the way the MSM pretends them to be. Heck the polls conducted on a daily basis are rife with bias one way or another depending on who is funding the poll or what is being asked. I also heard that some puposely lied to the exit poll takers to make them look bad. I also know some Libertarians who lied in these polls saying they voted for Bush in front of R friends, or for Badnarik when they really voted for Bush.

As far as not being vocal in other states: My guess at this point is that we have been active in other states. You see we _never_ get covered by the MSM no matter what we do. The only reason this is actually being covered by any station IMHO is because the G's and D's are the darlings of the media and they've decided to pursue these things also.

I'm asking around the LP right now about other investigations, I will reply when I find out more solid information. For now, I'm going to say goodbye cause my dinner is getting cold!

I appreciate everyone's respectful discussion of this matter. It would concern me greatly if the LP weren't doing things to uncover and fix electoral abuse in those other states.

BTW: I do know the LP received reports of at least one Republican being accosted who had his hand slashed in Ohio by some claiming to be Democrats. They stated when they attacked this man that it was because he was "one of the ones who hadn't allowed them to vote". This has been submitted as part of the ongoing investigation, and I'm sure that it is also being pursued as a criminal assault investigation at this point as well.

>>I would support a recount and an investigation into all allegations of electoral abuse or fraud no matter where they occurred, or who initiated the charges. If I was a millionaire I would finance it myself just so people couldn't say I was trying to use their tax dollars. I consider it that important to the future of our country in assuring free and fair elections.<<

Fair-seeming words. But I won't let you nuance this one to cover up for the hypocrites who lead the Libertarian Party.

Simple yes or no answer to a simple question. Once again, I ask (hoping you'll actually answer this time): Do you or do you not support a recount in Wisconsin and/or Pennsylvania?
Yes or no?

-George

you---But that was until several of them (and in particular, a radio talk show host who was fairly popular in the area) came out in favor of Hillary's nationalized health care!

me--lmao! Maybe, there are crazy people in every party, even libertarians. But believe me, repubs and dems got their share.

you--After listening more closely in the time following that, I saw two factions in the LP (in my opinion) - the pot/drug guys, and the Republican-haters. These factions are separate (usually) from those who are in the LP soley for the principles of libertarianism, but as an outsider, I see them getting drowned out by the nuts. Just my opinion.

me-- I don't personally hate republicans, nor I'm smoking pot at the moment. I'm a leaning-libertarian, and I personally dislike statism--period. I don't official affiliate with any party.

You're trying to back me into a corner here and take my answer out-of-context of the discussion at hand. The LP in Wisconsin has not been made aware of any allegations of vote fraud, so my answer in regards to Wisconsin would be - NO. I haven't had a chance to speak with the "leadership" in PA yet.

Now in Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada we have very clear evidence of these allegations and it's a pretty solid case from what I understand. This justifies the filing of a lawsuit.

I will state this again. If you have evidence of fraud in the states you mentioned please come forward with it - if not let's stick to the FACTS that we do know. Why should we even speak of filing a suit over things we can't PROVE in court? Would you rather see this whole election tied up with FRIVOLOUS lawsuits that can't be proven? We filed in these states because these cases can be won...

Perhaps you should be asking the Republican party why they haven't come forward in those states you mentioned to demand investigations? It seems like that would be the responsible thing to do would it not?

>>You're trying to back me into a corner here and take my answer out-of-context of the discussion at hand.

No, LiberalismRocks, I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you. Which you provided.

You want a recount only in states won by Bush-Cheney.

Now, you may dislike what that statement implies. Yet it's also a fact that the universe of states for which the hypocrites who lead the Liberal Stalking Horse Party (FKA the Libertarian Party) seek a recount is completely a subset of states won by President Bush and is an exclusionary subset for the states won by Sen. Kerry.

At this point, it appears you buy into the hypocrisy.

>>We filed in these states because these cases can be won...

the Liberal Stalking Horse Party reveals its true movies.

So are you saying that you expect a recount to show that the Liberal Stalking Horses or the Greens won those states? Are there 2 million or so undervotes for the Liberal Stalking Horse Party in Ohio? I thought there were only 92k spoiled ballots.

Otherwise, it appears that the only outcome you seek is to replace President Bush with Sen. Kerry as the winner of one or more of those states. Which suggests the Liberal Stalking Horse Party, of which you are apparently a member, prefers a Democrat to a Republican as president.

>>Perhaps you should be asking the Republican party why they haven't come forward in those states you mentioned to demand investigations?

Perhaps you should be asking the hypocrites who lead the Liberal Stalking Horse Party why they haven't come forward in those states I mentioned to demand an investigation. But in that case, to ask the question of the hypocrites would be to answer it.

>>It seems like that would be the responsible thing to do would it not?

Maybe Republicans, following the example set by the 1960 President-Elect, Richard Nixon, believe that it's better not to try to tear the country apart via litigation, and to abide by the election results and hope for the best in the coming four years.

But when you're a member of the Democrat Party, the Green Party or the Liberal Stalking Horse Party, litigation is your best friend. After all, when it comes to actually winning an election, the Liberal Stalking Horse Party completely lives up to its name.

You can choose to listen to what I've said with an open mind, or you can choose to see my words through the eyes of bitterness and contempt, it's up to you. Your vitriolic attacks against the Libertarian Party point to the fact that you are not interested in an educated, unbiased discussion of fact.

It's obvious to me that no matter what happens or what I say you will continue to see these actions as a way to unseat Bush. It is my assumption that you will continue to see it this way no matter what evidence I provide or what is proven in the courts.

"You want a recount only in states won by Bush-Cheney." You are very wrong, sir. I have asked you for evidence of malfeasance in regards to the elections in the states you mentioned. The Libertarian Party would be happy to prove fraud wherever it exists. You have not provided anyone with evidence of why suits should be brought in these other states.

As far as "Winning" these cases - the goal is to prove that there are problems in how these elections were conducted that need to be fixed - not to overturn the election.

That said, I will end the conversation at this point. It's not worth my time arguing with someone who isn't interested in intelligent debate and would rather resort to immature name calling.

>>of which you are apparently a member, prefers a Democrat to a Republican as president.

*You addressed this to someone else, but nevertheless...what exactly is a Republican leaders now? Could this be a honest perception of our given leaders?....

'Historically, Republicans have been the party of the
conservative virtues of balanced budgets, of a healthy
skepticism towards foreign wars, of a commitment to
traditional values and fierce resistance to the growth
of government power and world empire. No more. There
is no conservative party left in Washington. The GOP
may be Reaganite in its tax policy, but it is Wilsonian
in its foreign policy, FDR in its trade policy, and LBJ
all the way in its spending policies. Pragmatism is
the order of the day. The Republican philosophy might
be summarized thus: 'To hell with principle; what
matters is power, and that we have it, and they do
not.'

Personally, I prefer no president to either one.

I'll let Ron Paul answer your question as I suspect you will have greater respect for his interpretation than my own.

Well, no. I think he's a nasty crackpot. Definitely anti-Israel and I have my suspicions about anti-semitism.

I think everything passed was done so with "good intentions" of keeping us "safer" but these expanded powers could serve all of us a real injustice should those without good intentions come to power...

Easy for you to pontificate about that when your neighbhorhood (and I do mean immediate neighborhood) hasn't been blown up *twice* in eight years.

I'm sick and tired of all the Libertarians who are more than willing to put *my* life on the line for their ideals. When you've survived a massive terrorist attack -- one in which friends and neighbors of yours were slaughtered and you actually saw people die, before having to run for your life from a collapsing skyscraper -- *then* (and only then) will I take your views on "security vs. liberty" seriously.

I am unaware of the fundraiser you are speaking of, but if you will provide me with information on where it took place I will look into it and give you my opinion of what was done.

Oh, gee. How come each and every self-styled Libertarian "expert" knows nothing about a rather major event ran by his or her party? I'll give you a hint: It was held on September 11, 2004.

That's when I went from thinking of this party as a mildly amusing third party to an offensive group of kooks.

I think everyone feels for the innocent victims of any war, but I think some of the blame for their deaths isn't being placed where it should lie - the dictators and other groups who allowed these atrocities to occur in the first place (Al Qaeda, Sadaam, the Taliban). They are the ones who brought about this war, we are just the only ones with enough guts to fight it.

Well, you're out of line from the rest of your party -- the "All Pot, No Foreign Policy" Party.

Source:votecobb.org

Campaigns Demand that Court Allow Recount

Wednesday, December 1, 2004
Every county in Ohio is to certify their county ballot by today's deadline. An interesting point to note: more than half the counties finished their counting and certified their results by November 19th, three days prior to our lawsuit requesting an expedited count. However, Secretary of State Blackwell's office has not yet told us when they will certify the state ballots. We can only go by media reports which list December 6th as certification day. Recounting should begin five days later, after all candidates have been advised of their right to send observers. The TRO filed against David Cobb, Michael Badnarik and our lawyers by Delaware County is set to expire at noon today. Yesterday, we filed successfully to have the case removed to federal district court.

'I'm sick and tired of all the Libertarians who are more than willing to put *my* life on the line for their ideals. When you've survived a massive terrorist attack -- one in which friends and neighbors of yours were slaughtered and you actually saw people die, before having to run for your life from a collapsing skyscraper -- *then* (and only then) will I take your views on "security vs. liberty" seriously.'

**Terrorist are morons, yes?...But in your OPINION, why did they attack Americans and/or threaten them?

*Personally, I think it's worth considering what our enemy says; even though that doesn't change our actions towards them. What was Bin Laden's motives?

*"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine . This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001

*There's many quotes other than this, but ultimately he's saying he's our enemy because of how we deal with the 'Arabian Penisula' ie we don't mind our own business. Now I'm not pro-osama in any way; I can never condone a man killing innocent people, and I believe any man whom does or plans such, should be held to their crimes and punished (accordingly).

But what exactly should be our policy, if this is indeed a reason why we gain enemies? Do we continue down this path?
I'm not speaking idealism here, I'm speaking of practicality. What do you think we should do (in the above questions and just in general)?

>There is no conservative party left in Washington.
Sure there is. Republicans are by far -- it's not even close to being close -- the more conservative party. There are no more isolationist nativist Buchananites left in D.C., to be sure, which may be the reason some folks feel adrift.

>The GOP may be Reaganite in its tax policy
That's a good thing.

>but it is Wilsonian in its foreign policy
Really? I thought WW was a fan of the multi-lateralism of the League of Nations. Didn't President Bush ultimately "go it alone with about 40 friends" when the modern-day version of the League of Nations decided to appease a dictator?

And didn't the Islamic dictators and their henchmen declare war on the United States on 9/11? It's a war they started; but sometimes when dictators have "awakened a sleeping giant" the titan's "terrible resolve" will propel the giant to finish the war at a time and place of his own choosing.

>FDR in its trade policy
What would be the alternative? A Smoot-Hawley approach to "free" trade -- Smoot Hawley tariffs being a major contributor to the Great Depression.

>and LBJ all the way in its spending policies.
Not to mention Ronald Reagan. He had deficits, too. Strangely, the last two presidents to preside over a budget surplus were both impeached by Congress and/or a House congressional committee. Go figure.
GWB and the Republicans have allowed too much spending, to be sure. But it's not spending beyong comprehension when one takes the total size of the economy into account.

And when we last looked, the economy has been growing at a robust 3.9 percent expansion, millions of jobs were being created, and oil prices were plunging.

What's more, Bush is pressing for an Ownership Society that, if approved, would undo much of the economic and social morass left behind by the New Deal Ponzi schemes and the Great Society social welfare mess. Permanent tax cuts, Social Security private accounts, a possible flat tax, more home owners, a bigger investor class would transform the United States for the good.

>Pragmatism is the order of the day.

It would have been pragmatic to simply stay out of Iraq. It would have been pragmatic to leave the problems for others to fix. The pragmatist would simply stop with Afghanistana nd hope for the best, seeking a roaring economy and no foreign entanglements as the sure bet to win a second term, but a less certain path to halting the quest for a new Caliphate by Middle Eastern dictators and their catspaws.

The idealist believes that the same semi-civilized merchants, farmers and outcasts who made their way to Plymouth Rock might be the liberty-seeking ancestors of oppressed people in the Middle East. The idealist might believe that pragmatism has failed since the first Jewish-Arab war after WWII. The idealist might realize that without a dramatic new approach, the dictators would continue to quietly build their weapons and perfect their plots.

The pragmatic, Buchananite approach would end only one way: with a mushroom cloud -- or jetliners flying far off course through an "azure sky of deepest summer" to lower Manhattan.

The idealist might say that a new approach might push for political and consensual liberty for people who have the same yearning for human freedom that God gave us so long ago.

Is that Wilsonian? I don't know.

More likely, it's Reagan, FDR and Thatcher. The "shining city on a hill" can have brothers and sisters perched on pinnacles throughout the world. Those are "Republican principles" I can embrace.

-George

>>1) Grow a pair and just come out and say it: You think we should dump Israel on her ass and stop offending the delicate sensibilities of the poor widdle islamofascists.

*Just because it's in your mind doesn't mean it's a reality. Question denote civilized contact, and logical progression. It may be common to stereotype a person or people, but many times it generalized and moot. Perhaps we can do such in the future?

First of all, I believe that this country needs a little skepticism when it comes to using force or providing for it.

Secondly, it's just not a practical situation to pull our support from everyone--immediately. There's a lot of danger involved, and chaos. Such choses must be throughly looked at, and communicated.

Technically speaking, I would prefer if we didn't get to involved in situations that weren't nescessary for our own security ie we don't make future mistakes. The current ones do need to be resolved in a fashion that fits a practical mode, and a progressive movement towards the best safety America can accomplish. Overall, it's not a closed-door subject, it's an open and clear picture.

>>2) You still didn't address why I should be willing to die for your vaunted "principles."

You were addressing someone else in the previous post. You don't know all my principles. I may lean libertarian, but I'm not one fully. So do me a favor, and stop assuming what I am or what I stand for. A question would do just fine, as I addressed above.

Personally, I don't care what you do with your life or your money. I do care about what you do with my life and my money. I don't have the socialist mentality of someone owing me something (because I think it's right), nor do I wish someone to push that upon me.

note: The last paragraph isn't accusing you of anything, it's merely a statement or reflection on what I want from you...which is nothing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.